Allahabad High Court
Ram Narain Ram And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Edu. ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29892
Reserved on 13.02.2025
Delivered on 04.03.2025
Court No. - 10
1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26967 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ram Narain Ram And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Edu. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- .,Arvind Upadhyay,Ashok Kumar Singh,I.Raj Singh,Suresh Chandra Varma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K.Singh,S.R.Singh,V.K.Singh
2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34523 of 2008
Petitioner :- Bachche Lal And Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.R.S. Chauhan,Durga Charan Singh Yadav,Irshad Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Singh,V.K.Singh
3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 51401 of 2013
Petitioner :- Palakdhari Ram And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Irshad Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45035 of 2016
Petitioner :- Palak Dhari Ram And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 13 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar,Durga Charan Singh Yadav,Indal Singh,Irshad Ali,Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,S. Rashid,Salamuddin Khan,Satyawan Yadav,Shiv Bahadur Singh,Vinay Kumar Singh
5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39263 of 2017
Petitioner :- Ghurbhari Yadav And 5 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhawesh Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh,C.S.C.
6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16753 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramnarayan Ram And 8 Others
Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Yadav,Ashok Kumar,C.S.C.,Durga Charan Singh Yadav,Prabhakar Awasthi,Satyawan Yadav
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is a bunch of six writ petitions. Facts of each case would be necessary to refer hereinafter for proper adjudication of all petitions.
(A) WRIT - A No. - 26967 of 2008
2. This writ petition was filed by 13 petitioners that they were appointed as Teachers/ Employees of Respondent-Institution, namely, Anjuman Islamia Higher Secondary School, Dauna Safipur, Azamgarh, which was later on upgraded from Junior High School to Higher Secondary School.
3. Petitioners have claimed that Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur has passed an order dated 01.04.1995 and sanction in all 25 posts and petitioners were thereafter appointed in pursuance of a selection process vide appointment letters issued on different dates between 2001 to 2005.
4. In 2004 Committee of Management of Respondent-Institution has filed a writ petition for taking the Institution under grant-in-aid, which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2004 and a Special Appeal thereof filed by the State was rejected vide order dated 12.07.2005 and accordingly Respondent-Institution was brought under grant-in-aid.
5. Thereafter, in order to give financial approval, papers of petitioners were submitted. District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated 29.12.2007 found that there were only 14 sanctioned posts on which some of the present petitioners were considered to be legally appointed. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools on basis of material available passed a detailed order whereby petitioners, Ram Narain Ram and others, were found to be in service, whereas petitioners in connected writ petitions, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others were not found to be in service. It is further case of petitioners that within a very short period, aforesaid order was reviewed and a fresh order dated 08.05.2008 was issued wherein appointment of none of the petitioners were considered to be legal and appointment of other 13 persons (Palakdhari Ram and others) were considered to be valid and accordingly their approval was granted. This order is under challenged in present writ petition.
6. This Court vide order dated 04.06.2008 passed an interim order whereby impugned order dated 08.05.2008 was directed to be remain stayed. It appears that petitioners have worked continuously under the strength of same interim order as it remains in currency. For reference interim order dated 04.06.2008 is reproduced hereinafter:
"Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 may file counter affidavit within a month. Learned counsel for the petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos. 5 and 6. Steps may be taken within a week. Upon steps being taken office shall fix a date in the week commencing 18.8.2008 and the writ petition may be listed on the date mentioned in the notice.
Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4 shall remain stayed."
(B) WRIT - A No. - 34523 of 2008
7. During pendency of aforesaid writ petition, three other employees have filed this writ petition challenging impugned order dated 08.05.2008 since their appointments were also considered to be illegal. This Court has granted similar interim relief to said petitioners also by way of interim order dated 18.07.2008. These petitioners also appears to continue under said interim order, which is reproduced hereinafter:
"Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two week thereafter.
Issue notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to file counter affidavit within the aforesaid period.
List immediately thereafter alongwith Writ Petition No. 26967 of 2008, Ram Narain Ram and others vs. State of U.P. and others.
Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 08.5.2008, annexure-15 to the writ petition passed by respondent no. 4, District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh shall remain stayed."
(C) WRIT - A No. - 51401 of 2013
8. During exchange of pleadings in above two writ petitions, it was brought into notice that other set of group of employees (i.e. Palakdhari Ram and others) were already terminated by different orders passed in the year 2004, which was not noted when impugned order dated 08.05.2008 in above two writ petitions was passed in their favour, therefore, present writ petition was filed by five petitioners challenging their termination orders, which were passed on ground of their long absence. However, no interim order was passed in this writ petition probably on ground that there was an interim order in favour of other set of petitioners in above referred two writ petitions, i.e., Writ-A Nos. 26967 of 2008 and 34523 of 2008.
(D) WRIT - A No. - 45035 of 2016
9. This writ petition was filed by other set of petitioners (i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others) challenging orders dated 20.06.2016, 13.07.2016 and 09.08.2016, whereby on inquiry it was found that other set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain and others, were real appointees and appointments of these writ petitioners were forged. In the present writ petition also no interim order was passed.
(E) WRIT - A No. - 39263 of 2017
10. Above referred impugned orders dated 20.06.2016, 13.07.2016 and 09.08.2016 were also impugned by six petitioners of other set in this writ petition and no interim order was passed.
(F) WRIT - A No. - 16753 of 2024
11. This is the last petition filed by nine petitioners (Ram Narain and others) challenging orders dated 25.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 passed by Additional Director of Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj whereby salary of the petitioners was stopped at belated stage, despite above referred writ petitions were pending and interim orders were also in currency.
12. As referred above, there are two set of petitioners. First set of petitioners are Ram Narain Ram and others, i.e., petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 26967 of 2008, 34523 of 2008 and 16753 of 2024, who are still working under the strength of interim order passed by this Court but in the year 2024, their salary was stopped and second set of petitioners are Palakdhari Ram and others, i.e., petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 51401 of 2013, 45035 of 2016 and 39263 of 2017, who are under termination and there was no interim order in their favour. According to records, age of all petitioners appears to be more than 60 years.
13. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for first set of petitioners submitted that way back by an order dated 01.04.1995 passed by Deputy Director of Education 7th Region, Gorakhpur it was categorically held that there were 25 sanctioned posts in Respondent-Institution and thereafter District Inspector of Schools on basis of material available passed a detailed order dated 29.12.2007 whereby first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, were found to be in service, whereas second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others were not found to be in service. However, within a very few days only on basis of a telephonic instruction given by Director of Education (Secondary) a contrary order dated 08.05.2008 was passed that Ram Narain Ram and others were wrongly appointed and their appointments got wrongly approved by playing fraud. No reason was assigned why such contrary order was passed, i.e., details of instruction given on telephone by a higher officer as well why an order for lodging FIR was also passed.
14. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that even if the impugned order considered to be true, it would only means that there were 14 sanctioned posts and that the second set of petitioners have already been terminated, therefore, appointment of first set of petitioners are liable to be protected. He further refers the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 INSC 7 that a very long period of service as in the present case (more than two decades) be protected since it was not the case that due procedure was not followed. Only case against first set of petitioners is that the post was not sanctioned but as referred above today they are working against the original sanctioned posts, i.e., 14 in number. As allegation of fraud must be based on substantial material but no such material was disclosed either in impugned order dated 08.05.2008 or brought on record during exchange of pleadings in present bunch of writ petitions.
15. Per contra, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, submitted that they were the original appointees against 14 vacant posts. First set of petitioners were appointed on non sanctioned posts and by impugned order dated 08.05.2008 District Inspector of Schools has rightly informed about the actual position by the Director of Education and, therefore, by impugned order second set of petitioners were found in service. All necessary details were part of the impugned order. Learned counsel also submitted that without any inquiry petitioners were terminated and, therefore, principle of natural justice were violated. It is their case that they were regularly appeared in Collage, however, Management has not allowed or permitted them to make signatures, therefore, ground for termination, i.e., their long absence was incorrect.
16. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
17. Facts, as referred above, are very disturbing since exact number of posts was differently placed before respondent-authorities by Committee of Management which creates the present litigations. Still, considering that these writ petitions are pending for last more than 17 years and first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, have served and now must have attained age of superannuation, therefore, taking note of principle of equity, their services if now disturbed, it would be an inhuman approach of this Court and that should be avoided.
18. The District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh vide order dated 29.12.2007 found that there were only 14 sanctioned posts against claimed 25 posts, whereon petitioners of first set, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, found to be in service on inspection and accordingly a direction was passed that their salary be paid from State Exchequer. However, within a very few months, i.e., about five months, on 08.05.2008 said order was reviewed and second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, were found to be in service without taking note that they were terminated way back in the year 2004. Therefore, there was no reason to review the earlier order and this Court has rightly stayed operation of impugned order dated 08.05.2008 and under the strength of interim order petitioners of first set, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, were allowed to work. It is also very strange that only on telephonic instruction given by a higher officer, the earlier order was reviewed without disclosing any reason whatsoever. No reason was assigned why inspection report was not followed. Even said petitioners were not put on prior notice.
19. In aforesaid circumstances, the judgment placed by learned Senior Advocate appearing for first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, in Radhey Shyam Yadav and others (supra) would be relevant that such long appointment even if irregular be protected, though facts do not very specifically disclose that their appointments were irregular and otherwise also they worked against the sanctioned post only (14 in number).
20. Accordingly, Writ-A Nos. 26967 of 2008, 34523 of 2008 and 16753 of 2024 filed by first set of petitioners, i.e., Ram Narain Ram and others, are allowed, subject to factual verification by District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh about their regular working in Respondent-College since these writ petitions are pending for last more than 17-18 years. The said writ petitioners have worked under interim orders and during pendency of these writ petitions, there was no reason to State-Respondents to pass orders dated 25.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 to stop their salary, therefore, orders impugned in above writ petitions, i.e., dated 08.05.2008, 25.09.2024 and 27.09.2024 are hereby set aside. However, this order will not be construed as a precedent since it is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of present case.
21. So far as second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, are concerned, they were terminated in the year 2004 by different orders on ground of their long absence. No material was produced either in pleadings or during hearing that the said ground was factually incorrect. Rather, it appears that in order to adjust them, number of sanctioned seats were increased from 14 to 25 without any legal basis. Therefore, in absence of any substantial material which could contradict the ground for termination, no interference is called for.
22. Accordingly, Writ-A Nos. 51401 of 2013, 45035 of 2016 and 39263 of 2017 filed by second set of petitioners, i.e., Palakdhari Ram and others, are hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 04.03.2025
AK
